In regard to the third instalment, Mr. Chang proposed, on December 27, 1907, that he should hand it over in the form of a cheque to the Indian Government. But the latter again stood out for receiving it from a Tibetan. It was due only to a misunderstanding that payment in the previous year had been accepted direct before orders on the subject had arrived. As regards this proposal of the Chinese, Mr. Morley, though he doubted the advantage of raising the point, saw no objection, as the Tsarong Sha-pé was then in Calcutta, to payment being made by the Tibetan Government through him to the Government of India.
But this method of payment Mr. Chang refused, and wrote to Sir Louis Dane: “I regret to say that I am unable to meet your wishes that Tsarong Sha-pé should himself tender payment. I have received very explicit instructions from my Government on this subject, that the third instalment of the indemnity (Rs. 8,33,333:5:4) is to be handed over in the form of a cheque only by myself.” When the matter arose in discussion at a meeting on January 10, Mr. Chang intimated that he based his objection to the proposal on the fact that direct dealings between us and the Tibetan authorities would be involved in it. It was no longer possible, the Government of India thought, to doubt Chang’s firm determination that Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, to the exclusion of all local autonomy, should be indicated, and that direct communication of all kinds between our officials and Tibetans should be prevented. It appeared that Mr. Chang was being supported in this attitude by the Chinese Government, and that it was doubtful if we could expect, without further guarantee, loyal fulfilment of the Lhasa Convention as interpreted by His Majesty’s Government. Chinese claims might exist which contravened our distinct rights under the Lhasa Convention, as recognized in the Anglo-Russian arrangement regarding Tibet, and confirmed by the Peking Convention. The Indian Government greatly feared the reproduction in an aggravated form of the position of affairs before 1903 if Chinese contentions were admitted.
Mr. Morley proposed to Sir Edward Grey that a representation should be made to the Chinese Government of the serious consequences that would ensue if payment of a third instalment of the indemnity was not made in accordance with the Treaty; and the latter telegraphed to our Minister at Peking to inform the Chinese Government that the transfer of authority in the Chumbi Valley, much as it was desired by His Majesty’s Government, would be unavoidably delayed unless payment was made in accordance with the provision of the Lhasa Convention. The result was that within a week a cheque, signed by Mr. Chang, was delivered by the Tsarong Sha-pé, who paid a formal visit to Sir Louis Dane, accompanied by two Tibetan officers.
The Chinese did not altogether gain their third point, but it is to be noted that the cheque was signed by Mr. Chang, and that the Tibetan official was not much more than a messenger carrying it over to the Foreign Office.
All these proceedings have an air of triviality, but that in Asiatic eyes they were of importance we may infer from the insistence of the Chinese. If they really were trivial they might have handed the money to the Tibetans, and saved themselves the worry with us.
Connected with this question of the payment of the indemnity was the question of the evacuation of the Chumbi Valley, to effect which was the most important object of Chinese policy. By the original Treaty we had the right to occupy it till seventy-five annual instalments of the indemnity had been paid, but by the declaration affixed to the ratification of the Treaty we undertook that the British occupation of the Chumbi Valley should cease after due payment of three annual instalments, provided that the trade-marts, as stipulated in Article II., should have been effectively opened for three years, as provided in Article VI.; and that in the meantime the Tibetans should have faithfully complied with the terms of the said Convention in all other respects. On December 23, 1907, the Chinese Government addressed a note to our Minister, stating that as the final instalment was ready for payment on January 1, 1908, we should “withdraw on the above date the British troops in temporary occupation of the Chumbi Valley.”
The Indian Government pointed out[[49]] that the Chinese ignored the condition that evacuation was contingent on the Tibetans faithfully complying with the Treaty in every respect. Instances tending to show that this condition, and the condition that the trade-marts should be effectively opened had not been fulfilled, had already been reported to the Secretary of State. The fact that the Tibetan authorities had recently failed to provide accommodation, except at extortionate rent, for Indian traders supplied evidence of this. The Tibetans also imposed unauthorized restrictions on trade by accustomed routes across the northern frontier of Sikkim, and on traders going from the United Provinces to marts in Western Tibet. The fact that, in spite of the maintenance of the telegraph service being provided for in Article III. of the Peking Convention, there had been serious recrudescence of interruptions to it since Mr. Chang’s visit to Tibet, further illustrated the attitude of the Tibetans. There had also been obstruction to postal communication with Gartok. It could not, then, be said that marts had been effectively opened since Mr. Chang’s visit, whatever might have been the case before.
We should presumably have been entitled to claim, under the letter of the Treaty, that, until the trade-marts had been effectively opened for three years, and until the terms of the Convention had in the meantime been complied with in all other respects, the valley should be retained by us. It was not the desire of the Government of India to suggest rigid enforcement of the Convention in this respect. They bore in mind, however, the decision of His Majesty’s Government that if, after commencement of the negotiations for the Trade Regulations, the attitude of the Chinese and Tibetan representatives proved obstructive, the question of warning the Chinese and Tibetan representatives that our evacuation would depend on matters connected with trade-marts being satisfactorily settled, should be considered.
It was shown by the history of the negotiations that, in regard to important points at issue, the Chinese had been, and still were, most obstructive. Sir John Jordan’s requests regarding points which he was pressing had not yet been acceded to by the Wai-wu Pu; while, in a letter to Sir Louis Dane, which had just been received, Mr. Chang refused to yield other contested points, and forwarded further draft regulations. The transfer of the administration of the valley should, therefore, the Indian Government submitted, be deferred until some guarantee that the marts would be effectively opened, and that they would remain so, was afforded us by the new Trade Regulations. The chief lever which we possessed for securing China’s real compliance with the terms of the Lhasa Convention would be lost if the transfer was permitted before the signature of the Regulations. The possibility, in the event of non-fulfilment of conditions, of temporary postponement of evacuation was apparently contemplated by the annexure to the Anglo-Russian arrangement concerning Tibet. And the sincerity of our intention to leave the valley would perhaps be sufficiently guaranteed by the fact that discussion of the Trade Regulations was in progress, and that their settlement was to be followed by evacuation.